[Rumour] NHL plans to allow arguments to be heard on conds of Lucic/Neal trade (arbitration?)

[You Need a Thneed]

If they are going to prorate stats for performance bonuses, its a slam dunk pick gain for the Flames. The question is whether it would be a compensatory pick, or the oilers' pick itself.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

The Oilers will keep their pick and the Flames will get the last pick in round 3.

This is probably what will happen simply by virtue of the Oilers being treated like the NHL's poor, orphaned step-child that needs every conceivable advantage provided for just to avoid (mostly unsuccessfully) being the laughing-stock of the hockey and sporting world.

Edmonton is no good.

[dammage79]

I hope the league doesn't hand hold the Oilers on this one, give the Flames the pick and call it a day.

[topfiverecords]

Compensatory pick makes no sense. It’s taking the Oilers 3rd and it’s a slam dunk.

The arbitrator will make the Oil throw in a 2nd too for all the trouble.

[MrMike]

Special thanks to Getbak

All stats for the 2019-20 season will be prorated at a rate of 70/82, regardless of how many games the specific player's team has played. For performance bonuses, if a player only reached the threshold for the bonus by prorating his stats, he will only be paid 70/82nds of his bonus amount.

I can't see how this does not rule in our favour.

[TheScorpion]

Yeah there seems to be a ton of precedent favouring the Flames here. Not a ton favouring the Oilers. But..... it remains to be seen how it will all shake out.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Special thanks to Getbak

All stats for the 2019-20 season will be prorated at a rate of 70/82, regardless of how many games the specific player's team has played. For performance bonuses, if a player only reached the threshold for the bonus by prorating his stats, he will only be paid 70/82nds of his bonus amount.

I can't see how this does not rule in our favour.

The Oilers will be arguing we only deserve 70/82 of their third.

I know it can be simplified to 35/41, but that's too hard for the oilers. And I know it doesn't make any sense.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Yeah there seems to be a ton of precedent favouring the Flames here. Not a ton favouring the Oilers. But..... it remains to be seen how it will all shake out.

There is no precedent so not sure what you’re referring to.

I actually think the flames will get the oilers 3rd and the oilers will get a comp pick.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Weitz

There is no precedent so not sure what you’re referring to.

I actually think the flames will get the oilers 3rd and the oilers will get a comp pick.

Precedent in terms of prorating stats. They're doing it for performance bonuses. Why not do it for performance conditions?

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Precedent in terms of prorating stats. They're doing it for performance bonuses. Why not do it for performance conditions?

If it wasn't Holland it would be a slam dunk.

But I don't see any way we don't see a pick (and 90% chance its theirs)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Weitz

There is no precedent so not sure what you’re referring to.

I actually think the flames will get the oilers 3rd and the oilers will get a comp pick.

That is exactly what I expect - an extra pick at the end of the 4th round, or something of that nature

[the-rasta-masta]

Rationale thought definitely favours the Flames here. Would be surprised to see the Flames not get that pick. The thought of giving the Flames the Oilers pick and then letting the Oilers also keep a third round pick seems to be a good compromise, but I see that every other team may have an issue with two picks now being in front of there own instead of one. You think the league will rule in one way or the other, as per the nature of the trade intentions.

[powderjunkie]

Which teams in the play-in rounds have picks traded conditional on making the playoffs? I could see a legitimate grievance if a surprising team gets bounced.

PIT's provision to defer the 1st in the Zucker trade is looking brilliant...if they got bumped by MTL that pick could be the 1OA!

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Which teams in the play-in rounds have picks traded conditional on making the playoffs? I could see a legitimate grievance if a surprising team gets bounced.

PIT's provision to defer the 1st in the Zucker trade is looking brilliant...if they got bumped by MTL that pick could be the 1OA!

The Penguins pick and Canucks pick are conditional on the playoffs. The Leafs pick is top 10 protected, the Islanders pick is top 3 protected and the pick the Rangers gets from Carolina will be the lesser of the Leafs or Hurricanes picks.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

The Oilers will be arguing we only deserve 70/82 of their third.

I know it can be simplified to 35/41, but that's too hard for the oilers. And I know it doesn't make any sense.

That’s fine. They can pay 12/82 of the contract on whoever we draft.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

This season is unique with its own defining context. This is the first season since 1919 to not last for its full expected duration. Performance-determined bonuses and conditions should be altered to reflect that.

How many people expected the 1994-95 season to have 48 games, the 2004-2005 season to have 0 games, and the 2012-13 season to have 48 games? I don't think this is the first season that hasn't been played to the full expected duration. It's not even the only Big 4 sport that has had a season that wasn't played to expectation.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Everyone knew the 2012-2013 season would have 48 games once it was set. Never did they schedule 82 games and then cancel the remainder of the season. Similarly, everyone knew there was a possibility of 0 games in the 2004-2005 season and they never released a schedule only to cancel the games. All three of those seasons were CBA issues that were known years in advance.

These games were cancelled. That's a difference that destroys the comparison.

Anyways, shared custody of the pick makes the most logical sense. Flames get Sunday through Tuesday, Oilers get him Wednesday through Friday, with alternating Saturdays.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Everyone knew the 2012-2013 season would have 48 games once it was set. Never did they schedule 82 games and then cancel the remainder of the season. Similarly, everyone knew there was a possibility of 0 games in the 2004-2005 season and they never released a schedule only to cancel the games. All three of those seasons were CBA issues that were known years in advance.

These games were cancelled. That's a difference that destroys the comparison.

In 1994-95 the teams all went through training camp. There was a schedule for all teams to play 84 games. At the conclusion of training camp they were locked out. The lockout ended January 11, 1995 and it was then agreed to shorten the season to 48 games. They didn't go into September with only 48 games scheduled. They had a set schedule of 84 games and then didn't play some of them.

In 2004-05 there was the possibility of 0 games. There was also the possibility of 82 games. There was even the possibility of some number between 0 and 82. The lockout was announced September 15. The first regular season games were cancelled September 24. Games were cancelled 30 days in advance. The season wasn't cancelled until February 16. Once again, there was a set schedule of 82 games and then they were cancelled. The original schedule was released July 14, 2004, well before games were cancelled.

The 2012-13 NHL schedule was released on June 21, 2012. Each team was scheduled to play 82 games, 24 against teams in its own division, 40 against non-division teams in its own conference, and the other 18 games against teams from the other conference.

I am not saying there is a comparison between COVID-19 and CBA disagreements. I am not even saying that we didn't know of the CBA issues years in advance. I am saying that the 2019-20 NHL season is not the first season since 1919 to not last for the full, expected duration. There are three seasons that clearly did not last the full, expected duration. All had full schedules and all missed games. One missed all of the games.

You could say this is the first season since 1919 to miss games due to a non-CBA related issue. That would be correct. To say it's the first time scheduled games have not been played is factually incorrect. Games, in fact, have been cancelled in three seasons before this year. Games, in fact, have been cancelled this year. The situations are vastly different, but all four seasons have, in fact, cancelled games. The circumstances on why the games were cancelled does not "destroy the comparison".

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Anyways, shared custody of the pick makes the most logical sense. Flames get Sunday through Tuesday, Oilers get him Wednesday through Friday, with alternating Saturdays.

No. If they are to share custody, then if the Flames own 85% of that pick Edmonton gets it only on Sundays.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Torture]

Honestly, pro-rating and the season ending was probably the best case scenario.

Do we really think Neal (sorry, McDavid) would have scored two more goals over the rest of the season on that no good team and with the way he was playing? I had given up all hope of the Flames getting that pick before the season was cancelled.

(Arbitrator, if you're reading this, Neal is really skilled and would have easily scored 2 more goals in only 11 games with McDavid and Drai cause they are the bestest. Two would have been too easy, he probably would have had 5!)